Reitske Meganck, Mattias Desmet, Kimberly Van Nieuwenhove, Melissa De Smet, Vicky Hennissen, Femke Truijens, Rosa De Geest, Goedele Hermans, Claudi Bockting, Ufuoma Angelica Norman, Tom Loeys, Ruth Inslegers, Tim Van den Abeele, Chris Baeken, Stijn Vanheule
{"title":"根特心理治疗研究:一项务实、分层、随机的平行试验,研究依赖型和自我批评型抑郁症患者的心理动力和认知行为干预的差异疗效。","authors":"Reitske Meganck, Mattias Desmet, Kimberly Van Nieuwenhove, Melissa De Smet, Vicky Hennissen, Femke Truijens, Rosa De Geest, Goedele Hermans, Claudi Bockting, Ufuoma Angelica Norman, Tom Loeys, Ruth Inslegers, Tim Van den Abeele, Chris Baeken, Stijn Vanheule","doi":"10.1159/000531643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Different types of psychotherapy are effective for treating major depressive disorder across groups yet show large within-group differences. Patient personality style is considered a potentially useful variable for treatment matching. Objective: This study is the first experimental test of the interaction between therapeutic approach and patients’ dependent versus self-critical personality styles. Methods: A pragmatic stratified parallel trial was carried out with 100 adult patients diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder. They were randomly assigned to short-term (16–20 sessions) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Patients were assessed at baseline, during therapy, post-therapy, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome is depression severity measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression posttreatment. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com), number ISRCTN17130982. Results: The intention-to-treat sample consisted of 100 participants; 40 with self-critical and 60 with dependent personality styles were randomized to either CBT (n = 50) or STPP (n = 50). We observed no interaction effect (−0.34 [−6.14, 5.46]) between therapy and personality style and found no evidence for a difference in effectiveness between the treatments in general in terms of symptom reduction and maintained benefits at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: We found no evidence that dependent versus self-critical personality styles moderate the relation between treatment and outcome in depression. Research using individual patient data could gain further insight into why specific therapeutic approaches work better for specific patients.","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":" ","pages":"267-278"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ghent Psychotherapy Study: A Pragmatic, Stratified, Randomized Parallel Trial into the Differential Efficacy of Psychodynamic and Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions in Dependent and Self-Critical Depressive Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Reitske Meganck, Mattias Desmet, Kimberly Van Nieuwenhove, Melissa De Smet, Vicky Hennissen, Femke Truijens, Rosa De Geest, Goedele Hermans, Claudi Bockting, Ufuoma Angelica Norman, Tom Loeys, Ruth Inslegers, Tim Van den Abeele, Chris Baeken, Stijn Vanheule\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000531643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Different types of psychotherapy are effective for treating major depressive disorder across groups yet show large within-group differences. Patient personality style is considered a potentially useful variable for treatment matching. Objective: This study is the first experimental test of the interaction between therapeutic approach and patients’ dependent versus self-critical personality styles. Methods: A pragmatic stratified parallel trial was carried out with 100 adult patients diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder. They were randomly assigned to short-term (16–20 sessions) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Patients were assessed at baseline, during therapy, post-therapy, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome is depression severity measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression posttreatment. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com), number ISRCTN17130982. Results: The intention-to-treat sample consisted of 100 participants; 40 with self-critical and 60 with dependent personality styles were randomized to either CBT (n = 50) or STPP (n = 50). We observed no interaction effect (−0.34 [−6.14, 5.46]) between therapy and personality style and found no evidence for a difference in effectiveness between the treatments in general in terms of symptom reduction and maintained benefits at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: We found no evidence that dependent versus self-critical personality styles moderate the relation between treatment and outcome in depression. Research using individual patient data could gain further insight into why specific therapeutic approaches work better for specific patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"267-278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000531643\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000531643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Ghent Psychotherapy Study: A Pragmatic, Stratified, Randomized Parallel Trial into the Differential Efficacy of Psychodynamic and Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions in Dependent and Self-Critical Depressive Patients.
Introduction: Different types of psychotherapy are effective for treating major depressive disorder across groups yet show large within-group differences. Patient personality style is considered a potentially useful variable for treatment matching. Objective: This study is the first experimental test of the interaction between therapeutic approach and patients’ dependent versus self-critical personality styles. Methods: A pragmatic stratified parallel trial was carried out with 100 adult patients diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder. They were randomly assigned to short-term (16–20 sessions) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Patients were assessed at baseline, during therapy, post-therapy, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome is depression severity measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression posttreatment. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com), number ISRCTN17130982. Results: The intention-to-treat sample consisted of 100 participants; 40 with self-critical and 60 with dependent personality styles were randomized to either CBT (n = 50) or STPP (n = 50). We observed no interaction effect (−0.34 [−6.14, 5.46]) between therapy and personality style and found no evidence for a difference in effectiveness between the treatments in general in terms of symptom reduction and maintained benefits at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: We found no evidence that dependent versus self-critical personality styles moderate the relation between treatment and outcome in depression. Research using individual patient data could gain further insight into why specific therapeutic approaches work better for specific patients.
期刊介绍:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field.
As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers.
The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.